[lustre-discuss] patchless server vs. patched server

Pascal Suter pascal.suter at dalco.ch
Tue Jun 2 05:50:51 PDT 2020

Hi George

that used to be the case until before 2.10.1, but since 2.10.1 even 
ldiskfs does not require a patch anymore. I have actually updated from a 
patched 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 patchless and i am using ldiskfs for my MDTs  
and ZFS for the OSTs

but i think i just found out why there are still both versions being 
packed.. while i was looking for a link to quote regarding ldiskfs now 
working without a patch, i actually found the announcement of 2.10.1  at 
http://lustre.org/lustre-2-10-1-released/ which states

    "Patchless server build for ldiskfs is now routinely provided. Note 
that the patched kernel version must still be used to make use of 
project quotas"

And here is the document that my question was based upon:


it states:

"Note: With the release of Lustre version 2.10.1, it is possible to use 
patchless kernels for Lustre servers running LDISKFS. The patchless 
LDISKFS server distribution does not include a Linux kernel. Instead, 
patchless servers will use the kernel distributed with the operating 

and here is a LUDOC issue regarding documenting this in the official 
lustre documentation:


(amazing what you can find once you know what to look for ;))

i have applied for a lustre.org wiki account to add this missing piece 
of information which should help people to choose better if they want to 
use the patched or patchless kernel. luckily i'm not using the project 
quota feature ;)



On 6/2/20 1:50 PM, George Melikov wrote:
> IIRC "patchless server" can only serve ZFS based backends.
> So, it you really need ldiskfs - you're stuck with patched kernel for now.
> 27.05.2020, 18:41, "Pascal Suter" <pascal.suter at dalco.ch>:
>     Hi all
>     i am currently upgrading a lustre 2.10.3 to 2.12.4 on CentOS 7.7 and I
>     am unsure if I should use the patchless or patched server version.
>     what
>     is the advantage of still using the patched server version over using
>     the patchless variant? From an linux sysadmin point of view I
>     prefer to
>     use an unpatched kernel and it would seem unnecessary to still
>     maintain
>     a patched variant if they both worked the same in the end.
>     regards
>     Pascal
>     _______________________________________________
>     lustre-discuss mailing list
>     lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>     <mailto:lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
>     http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
> ____________________________________
> Sincerely,
> George Melikov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20200602/1bbfc6b7/attachment.html>

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list